About your Search

20130101
20130131
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
as from serbia? he started to beat me also. i bend my legs, so he beat me in the same place. after that, they try to stand up everybody and put us in a line. they put ropes on the hands and pull us from front and from out. >> they tied your arms to each other, all of the people on the road in one line? but to understand it, they took off the shackles from your feet when they brought you to the opening of the plane, and then they push too out of the plane? >> yes. >> do you still have the black back on your head? >> yes. >> so you felt out of the plane and broke your legs? >> yes. some of the people cannot move. they beat them until they cannot move. i hear the door go like that. remove 420 or 30 minutes, then they put us -- we move for 20 or 30 minutes, then they put us in a place. we feel like in that place. one by one, they took us inside a place -- it is not a building, but something for preparing the aircraft. >> like an airplane hangar. >> exactly. they took us one by one. at that time, they ask us to sit on our knees. one by one, they take five or 10 minutes and then take another
points out in panama, 1989, iraq, 1990, serbia, 1998, afghanistan, 2001 and iraq, 2003, washington tried sanctions pressure and the threat of force to get leaders to change course, it didn't work. and washington had to make good on its threat to go to war. with north korea, coercive diplomacy also failed, but in this case, washington decided against military action choosing, instead, to contain the regime. making coercive diplomacy requires a mix of threats and promises. with regard to iran, the administration has made the threats plenty of times. with clarity and credibility. but while the sticks have been handled shrewdly, the carrots have not. the united states is unable to define for itself or for the world what would be an acceptable deal and, most importantly, what it is willing to do if ta ron agrees to such a deal? would sanctions be lifted? which ones? would the u.s. stop its efforts to overthrow the regime? would it be willing to discuss normalization of relations with iran? there have been many obstacles in the path of a deal from the iranian side. but a former state departmen
led a nato intervention to protect the muslims against bosnia muslims against serbia aggression, and then in afghanistan, one could argue that the toppling of the taliban in 2001, and i was there for that too, was a benefit for the afghan people, certainly for the women of that society, didn't like being ruled by medieval cult, and then, and then the, in terms of iraq, you know, overthrowing the united states -- the united states did overthrow a dictator based on maybe its misreading of intelligence and wmd, but it empowered the shia majority allowing them to exercise, well, to be part of the government in a way they could never have been otherwise. i think at this point in time, so many people have served in iraq for so long, i mean, talking about a conflict that started in 2003 and we still have a very largest embassy in the world there. there's a fine grain understanding among american experts about the differences between sueny and shia, and long the sunni and among the shia, that's not the issue. i do think that one thing that works against the united states is there's very
to other nations, look in that liberal democrats such as hillary clinton in kosovo, serbia and also neocons in the invasion on iraq and most recently the globalized, obama and the invasion of libya. so what my question is, here we have the united states denying the sovereignty of other nations and that i think is a problem of the two parties, both which are socially were parties. >> okay, in my book i distinguish between sovereignty in general, which is westphalian sovereignty, which would be the sovereignty of the burmese junta are any autocratic state and democratic sovereignty, which i call american, but there are other democratic sovereignty states. i make that distinction in the democratic sovereignty is more greater moral authority and sovereignty in general. so the cases you're referring to are in most cases overthrowing autocratic sovereignty. this is also a policy question. at that concerns me with the regime questions of a political science professor, liberal democracy and clinical science are two types. one is regime to close the type of government you have in the form goes to yo
have a stalemate in macedonia over the name issue we have the serbia-kosovo dialogue that's not been pleated, we still have those countries that aspear to ascend ancy into the e.u. i would just urge you that further progress in that area is going to continue to require american leadership. i hope that we will continue to work in the region to ensure that they continue to make progress. >> we will, senator. i just want to thank you for your leadership of the european affairs subcommittee you've done a tremendous job working on it and i look forward to working with you. >> senator kerry, i appreciate your thoughtful opening statement and your thoughtful response to these questions. i have a great deal of respect for your global experience, your depth of knowledge in these areas. i would have enjoyed working with you as a member of the committee and i'm going to enjoy working with you as secretary of state. as you said, these are complex issues and these are dangerous times. i certainly grew up hoping that that maxim of politics ends at the water's edge was actually true. i'm not sure i
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)